FAA strikes deal to close SMO

In a move that surprised many, the FAA has reached a deal with the city of Santa Monica to close the Santa Monica Airport on Dec. 31, 2028.

The deal resolves “longstanding litigation” over the future of the Southern California airport, according to FAA officials.

Announced by the city during a press conference on a Saturday afternoon, the deal also gives the city the right to immediately shorten the airport’s single runway from 4,973 feet to 3,500 feet “in recognition of the city’s authority to make decisions about land use,” according to FAA officials.

The deal also requires the city to enter into leases with the FBOs on the field “to ensure continuity of those services until the runway is shortened and it decides to provide such services on its own,” FAA officials said.

As part of the deal, the FAA acknowledged that the city has the right to establish its own FBO.

Michael Huerta

“Mutual cooperation between the FAA and the city enabled us to reach this innovative solution, which resolves longstanding legal and regulatory disputes,” said FAA Administrator Michael Huerta. “This is a fair resolution for all concerned because it strikes an appropriate balance between the public’s interest in making local decisions about land use practices and its interests in safe and efficient aviation services.”

While GA advocates — many who spent years fighting for the airport — were taken aback by the news, city officials were jubilant.

“This is a historic day for Santa Monica,” said Mayor Ted Winterer. “After decades of work to secure the health and safety of our neighborhoods, we have regained local control of airport land. We now have certainty that the airport will close forever and future generations of Santa Monicans will have a great park.”

Santa Monica Airport. Photo courtesy the City of Santa Monica

City officials say they plan to shorten the runway “immediately.”

“This will significantly reduce jet traffic flying over our neighborhoods and stops commercial charters until we close operations in 2028,” said City Manager Rick Cole.

In direct contrast, GA’s alphabet groups expressed disappointment and anger at the deal.

“It is certainly a disappointing development, first concerning the immediate ability to shorten the runway, and the ultimate ability to close the airport in 2028,” said Jack Pelton, chairman of the Experimental Aircraft Association.

He said they could only “guess at the inside discussions to reach this settlement, as to our knowledge, the airport’s stakeholders were not a part of it,” adding, “the founding principles of FAA grant assurances are to maintain stability for an airport and its users as part of the national airspace system, above local political maneuvering.”

“The devil is in the details,” he said. “We are working to learn more about the fine points of the settlement, but our main goal — to keep this airport permanently open and available to all general aviation users — remains unchanged. We are not done fighting for Santa Monica.”

Or for the businesses that are currently on the field.
Officials with the National Air Transportation Association, which fought for FBO Atlantic Aviation’s right to continue to operate at SMO, echoed other GA’s groups comments that the implications of this agreement are far-reaching.

“The agreement announced over the weekend is clearly a compromise that will have to be studied closely to fully understand its implications to both SMO and the entire national airport system,” said NATA President Martin H. Hiller. “Certainly, it does not change the necessity of airports like SMO to the LA region. Ultimately, the city of Santa Monica is simply diverting a segment of its traffic to neighboring airports. It is disappointing that businesses both on and off the field that depend on SMO were not part of the negotiations.

“We are pleased the FAA has stated the city is obligated to extend leases to current aeronautical service providers until such time as the city is ready to operate a proper aeronautical service operation with the same commitment to safety and service as demonstrated by NATA members like Atlantic Aviation,” he continued.

NATA officials added they have never disputed the city’s right to operate “a proprietary exclusive business at the field” — its own FBO.

“However, such an operation must be a legitimate one, providing services consistent with industry standards and expectations and selling the kinds of fuel widely used in the industry and support use of the field — a point we note is covered in the weekend agreement,” Hiller said. “The reduction in runway length is a game-changer, the changing mix of traffic in and out of SMO now necessitates a review by the city, other regional communities and private investors as to the appropriate type of aeronautical service businesses to operate at the field.”

“We are dismayed that consideration would be given to this kind of arrangement, in the process discriminating against the local entrepreneurs and businesses that rely on the airfield,” said NBAA President and CEO Ed Bolen. “We are disappointed that the government decided to settle this case, especially given that NBAA has long been committed to aggressively supporting business aviation access to SMO, through every legislative and legal channel available. If there are further avenues available to us, we intend to explore them.”

Also weighing in is the Citation Jet Pilots Owner Pilot Association (CJP), an organization of more than 800 owners, pilots and enthusiasts of the Cessna Citation line of jets. Members of the organization are especially upset about the immediate shortening of the runway, which restricts SMO’s suitability for turbine-powered aircraft.

Andrew Broom

“In fact, it severely limits jet operations,” said CJP Executive Director Andrew Broom. “A shorter runway at SMO means that dozens of our members based throughout Southern California will not be able to safely utilize a valued airfield in the Los Angeles basin. I find it somewhat baffling that the FAA would accept, never mind celebrate, such a compromise.”

“We need to fight to keep airports like Santa Monica in our communities, as they are the backbone to our nation’s aviation infrastructure,” Broom continued. “Unfortunately, today’s developments remind us all too well of the sudden closure of Chicago’s Meigs Field in 2003, and this certainly establishes a troubling precedent for other communities that may wish to take similar actions against their hometown airports.”

A little background

Established in 1917, the airport was the home of the Douglas Aircraft factory during World War II.

In 1948, the federal government declared the airport surplus property and gave it to the city of Santa Monica through an Instrument of Transfer. Part of the deal is that the property remain an airport in perpetuity.

The city initially sued over SMO in federal court in October 2013, claiming that it was not fully aware that the federal government had a continuing expectation of the city’s compliance with the conditions of the 1948 transfer agreement concerning the airport.

A U.S. district court judge threw out the city’s initial case as being filed too late to challenge something that they’ve known about for over 65 years, leading the city to appeal to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court.

On appeal, the city again argued that it did not know that the conditions of the 1948 agreement were still in force, and that, in any event, a 1984 settlement with the FAA over aircraft traffic at SMO extinguished any rights the federal government had under the World War II-era statute.

While still tied up in court, the city took measures to strangle the airport, assessing exorbitant landing and rental fees and not renewing leases for businesses on the airport.

Then in November 2014, a city sponsored ballot initiative known as Measure LC passed, giving control of the airport to the City Council.

Since then, city officials have continued the fight in the courts and through its tactics to try to evict airport tenants and restrict use, such as banning jets and limiting touch and goes.

Be a better informed pilot.

Join over 110,000 readers each month and get real-world news and information direct to your inbox, each day.

Comments

I would like to know where all the trendy flying cars and electric flying craft are going to land? I guess the future isn’t being planned for very well. Get used to sitting in traffic jams forever. Smart!

Wasn’t Huerta a truck driver? maybe he still is. I understand that the assistant administrator is taking flying lessons. Ain’t that nice. Just like over 90% of FAA employees have zero, none, niet, nada zip aviation background. And guess what folks, after a few years on the government payroll they enjoy over $100,000 per year salary and they all retire as managers. And they don’t have to put in over 24 hours per week on the job. You call a FSDO or MIDO after 1pm and you get, “He is out in the field”. Oh, and in CA they get an additional $28K per year COL. Did you see the cartoon where the little fellow came into where his grandpa was reading the paper and said; “Gramps, I have decided to take up organized crime as my profession.” Granps, “Government or private sector”?

You don’t move next to the freeway, and complain about the noise or pollution. If that’s problematic for you, you don’t move next to the freeway!
Anyway, cars produce way more pollution in the Los Angeles basin, than air traffic at SMO. What a joke.
Guess what? No more SMO class Delta?
The SADDE arrival to LAX is about to get alot lower. LOL!

I live in Chicago. Meigs Field is a park that no one uses. It too hard for people to get to because it’s on a peninsula and is infested with mosquitos in the Summer. Great land use decision!! The assault against GA seems to be never ending. We need to keep fighting.

If you like the nuts in California there is a guy in Oregon who thinks that flight schools should only be able to do practice maneuvers over land they own. He thinks that doing stalls and such over private land is essentially trespassing. That is just the beginning of his wacko points but you can see the threat, if he tries enough different approaches to shut down light aircraft use of “His” airspace sooner or later one is bound to be a hit with the general public like Santa Monica’s “Lets build a Park” idea.

“In 1948, the federal government declared the airport surplus property and gave it to the city of Santa Monica through an Instrument of Transfer. Part of the deal is that the property remain an airport in perpetuity.”

Apparently, neither the Court nor the fine political ‘leaders of Santa Monica know the definition of ‘perpetuity’.

Very sad. BUT there is an interview with Huerta on AOPA Live and it at least points to what seems like a believable and strong consideration for the FAA agreeing to what they did.

Unfortunately, whether selfish left-wingers or not, there are a whole lot of people that move to an area with an airport nearby, and they don’t give a rat’s ass that it was there before, they want it removed. What Huerta was saying is that, even though SMO and the supporters of the airport had many very good arguments, both legal and moral, as to why the airport should remain fully open, the courts were leaning against the airport and the FAA. It was quite likely that the Santa Monica scumbag city officials had absolutely no problem with spending massive amounts of taxpayer money to fight the airport and the FAA indefinitely, with a good likelihood (judging by previous developments and the court’s lack of a stance against the city officials) of the city winning a decision to close the airport immediately, or to at least make life so difficult for the good people at the airport that they would have to discontinue operations.

It is very sad, but the decision for the FAA was to either keep fighting and, with a simple court decision from a noise-hating or real-estate-development-friendly judge, possibly lose the airport immediately, or to make an agreement that at least keeps the airport open for a while. The FAA chose the latter. It only seems like a bad decision now if you were to think the FAA and airport supporters would have won every court battle that they needed to. The problem is with selfish scum like the city officials and C.R.A.A.P., etc, is that they do not care who they hurt or how much taxpayer money they spend, they will stop at nothing until they get their way and make those in their crosshairs miserable. So in light of that, maybe the FAA’s decision is not so bad after all.

I agree with you guys, those left-wingers are a bunch of selfish, nasty people (that was proven quite obvious after the election), but maybe this decision was necessary to stop them from making the good people at SMO miserable and let them continue to offer the good service and great jobs at SMO for at least a little while. I wish Trump would have came in and told the city officials to go F themselves and quit wasting taxpayer money and go build schools instead!

Watch the full, 22 min Huerta interview with AOPA, it is worth watching.

I haven’t watched the Huerta interview, so can’t comment on it, but as I see it the problem goes way beyond Santa Monica. What does this teach the next community that tires of its airport? That the FAA will cave, that’s what. First the illegal closing of Meigs, now this. It is a very bad precedent that says that the people in power don’t care enough about our airports to defend them. Get ready for more airport closings.

It isn’t exactly closed! The supposed deal is for 2028.
I live 2 streets over from SMO. I have severe health disabilities. UCLA just did a air quality study. Finding the air quality to be the worst in LA county because of this airport. Young families with children live in these homes. The airport should be closed immediately for health reasons. I’ve began contacting a source in the whitehouse with hopes he can help with my requests to the EPA.

Dr., Your comment is absurd. To suggest this airport and the traffic there makes it the most polluted place in the valley is a reach. Airplanes spend little time on the ramp running piston or turbines because fuel is expensive (part of that expense is fuel tax that you benefit from) and pilots want to get airborne asap. They are quickly into higher altitude and winds partly for noise abatement.

Your health is NOT affected by a aircraft from SMO. There is no legit science based study that has EVER established a few planes taking off and landing at an airport hurts anyone in any way. Except when one crashes into a house. And an incident like that is more rare than being eaten by a Polar bear and Brown bear on the same day.

@Rivegauche610, I agree. But what bothers me is that I can’t think of a better way to turn people against you than to call them, as Max just did, “a bunch of selfish, nasty people.” Perhaps Max should look in a mirror. Lumping over half of the people into a group, proclaiming that they are responsible for all which is evil in aviation, and then calling them inflammatory names is just incredibly stupid. First, it’s false that all “left wingers” and “liberals” are anti-aviation, as it is also false that “right-wingers” are pro-aviation. John Wayne himself signed a petition against the airport that now bears his name, which is why for a long time local aviators insisted on calling it “Orange County.” He wasn’t exactly known for his liberal views.

We need people on our side as aviators, not hating us because a vocal minority in our fraternity say such vile things about them. That’s stupid and self-defeating. Apparently the partisan right-wingers ranting here have forgotten that the Democratic candidate for president got 3 million more votes than the Republican candidate.

Perhaps our argument as aviators should be about the greater good of everyone that aviation provides, instead of saying the ignorant, inflammatory name-calling that I’m reading on this forum. Turning aviation into a Right vs Left issue will almost certainly turn a majority of the non-aviating general public against us.

Nonsense. Hillary did not win anything. And her so-called popular vote bump was no doubt due to millions of illegals voting in, guess where? California.

This airport fiasco is not happening in Texas or Indiana or Utah…it’s happening in the HEART of the blue coast on the West. We have seen those behind this are destroying the airport out of selfishness and false-science. There is no data that Jet-A hurts anyone. Yet that is their premise.

California and liberals in the East hate fossil fuels and this closing will be a signal to others like those in Santa Monica that it’s open season on all things aviation….after all we are still burning 100LL too, remember?

GBigs, you comment is idiotic. There is NO evidence of “millions of illegals voting,” and this is not the forum for your ignorant conspiracy theories. I said, “the Democratic candidate for president got 3 million more votes than the Republican candidate.” This is a fact … not an alternative fact, just a fact.

Can we keep this garbage out of aviation forums and focus on keeping aviation available for all of us? As I’ve said before, alienating half the population by making these inflammatory comments does the aviation community great harm. Keep your political views to yourself and keep your eye on the real issues, which are not partisan. If you make them partisan, we will lose.

The “garbage” is what is happening in California and Santa Monica airport. Politics is why. The liberals in Santa Monica are forcing the closing the airport based fake science; “ill effects of Jet A.”

Left wingers hate fossil fuels. And Aviation will be a target because it requires a LOT of fossil fuels, including 100LL. And airports take a LOT of land…land liberals will want to convert to green spaces.

You mean that I pointed out an undisputed fact? There is NO evidence for your claim of millions of fraudulent votes for Clinton.

I repeat, if you make aviation political, we will lose. I urge you to keep your political opinions to yourself and try to make aviation inclusive. We need allies, not enemies. It need not be political. People on the Left and Right have a stake in aviation. Your generalizations and insults do nothing but create enemies.

Ah, so you want to keep the politics going. Hillary did not win anything. She is not the president. Millions of illegals did vote in California and elsewhere…CA give illegals drivers licenses and allows anyone with a drivers license to vote….see how that works?

We in aviation are offended by irrational and destructive efforts to cripple the sport. The liberals are water carriers for Climate Change and anti-capitalists and want to plow under infrastructure and ‘return’ it to green space.

And that’s why this airport closing and being plowed under will not be the last….And notice, those demanding the airport be closed are not aviatiators, nor is the city council.

You’re hopeless. You’re wrong about who won the popular vote, but it’s irrelevant. I was trying to make the point that alienating even half the population with your slander is not in the best interests of aviation. Is that really so difficult to understand? You’re not too bright, apparently, since I’ve made this point several times and it’s actually pretty obvious if you’d bother to think about it. We in aviation are tired of ignorant people like you alienating the public against our interests. Take a deep breath and try to not post things directly contradictory to what is in the interest of your fellow aviators.

I think we all know what your IQ is – you’ve just decided to tell us, even though we didn’t ask. Dale’s right – if this is how you conduct your conversations with the non-aviating public, I don’t want you representing our industry to anyone, because they’ll think all pilots are just like you. You’re right about somrething – you didn’t start this – Sarah and Max inserted the evil “liberal” label into the description of the airport opponents. But you started the yelling. And doesn’t do anything to get us moving in the direction we need to go – which is getting the FAA to have a spine.

I’m about as far “left” as you can get, but that doesn’t mean that I don’t understand the role of aviation to our economy, and how vital airports are to that. How can I trust anything you say if you keep spouting that nonsense about the election? Does everyone on the “right” always agree with all of your opinions? Of course not… so why do you think that everyone on the “left” is in agreement… on anything? I’m a pilot, and I’m a “leftist” / “progressive” / “liberal”, but guess what? I’m also p.o.’d about the sellout by the FAA. We in the aviation community can’t afford to piss off our potential allies in the fight over airports, it’s just that simple.

Are you that stupid? The object here is to promote aviation. What does it matter who I did or didn’t vote for? If you insult half of the people, half of the people will probably be against you. Don’t politicize aviation! It’s that simple.

I did not use a derogatory comment against you, yet you post the above to me. Ugh, liberals are soooo annoying. Shaking your finger at others, saying how terrible insults are, yet the insults come from you first. Yep, I must be so stupid because I don’t agree with liberal ways. That’s the way all liberals think, and they will never stop until they get what they selfishly want, no matter how many are hurt or how many resources are wasted in the process.

“Love trumps hate!” then the election doesn’t go their way and what happens? The “love’ they claim to have never shows up, instead violence and vandalism does. “Love trumps hate!” That is, until Trump wins, then F all y’all.

The silent majority just wants whoever is in power to work and be effective. The opposite of that, the screaming liberals could care less who is in office, if it’s not who they wanted, they will scream and cry and try to selfishly derail any progress (even if it could be beneficial to many) until they get their way.

While commenting on this website is all good and fine, why don’t each of us that feel this way, especially those the live, work, or visit Santa Monica, write to the Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce letting them know they will neither visit, or support ANY business in Santa Monica based on this decision.

They may, or may not give a damn, but if they get a great amount of such email, they may take notice. I have already sent my email to them. How about joining me. By the way, stick to it as well. We can only speak with our email and our wallets at this point.

One more Left Wing ‘victory’ that will not soon be forgotten. Yes Mike, NO AVIATION USE BY CITY OFFICIALS, City bus only, no taxis either, just Santa Monica public transportation. If it doesn’t go where you want to go, TOUGH.

What possible purpose could you hope to accomplish by taking a non-partisan issue and making an inflammatory comment which is guaranteed to offend over half of the population? Both right-wingers and left-wing pilots are disappointed with this ruling. Keep your ignorant political assumptions to yourself.

This cat Michael Huerta is an Obama appointee and that pretty much says it all.

Huerta is not a pilot or an aviation guy. He is Obama appointed that touts a bachelor’s degree in political science from the University of California-Riverside and a master’s in public affairs, with a concentration in international relations, from the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University. So don’t say this isn’t a political issue.

This is his acclaim to fame—— He was a Managing Director of the 2002 Olympic Winter Games focusing on the planning and construction of a variety of Olympic transportation facilities, as well as the development of a highly successful travel demand management system that ensured the transportation system operated safely and efficiently. ??

This a case where “you knew there was an airport here when you moved here” thing. But that doesn’t stop liberals from bitching and what I see here is a political battle.

I live just under the north approach and departure end of DFW airport and have been here since 1992. I used to watch as Braniff, American, Delta, Western 727s and 737s 747s from all over come and go. To me, heavy jet traffic means a healthy aviation industry. The city planners of Santa Monica should have extended commercial real estate out from the approach and departure ends of the airport.

Now, even the FAA is planning to destroy yet another business that will effect thousands. More social justice perhaps?

How many of you remember the destruction of Chicago’s Meigs Field by another liberal democrat and turned it into a park?

Do you see the problem here? By turning this into a partisan issue rather than an aviation issue, all you are doing is alienating half of the population and turning them against you, thus harming aviation interests.

Do you remember that it was Huerta who pushed through aviation medical reform? Was he a Republican when he did this?

If you really want to help aviation, you’ll stop making aviation a partisan issue. We don’t need more enemies. We need more friends. I know this is not partisan right-winger’s strong suit, but you might try thinking about it and not pissing half of the people off with your partisan rants.

Really, I’m so very sorry Hillary did not win, but please, quit insulting everyone on this site while at the same time whining politically about ‘over half the population voting for Hillary’….it is just so typically liberal, so annoying.

Effective immediately, all members of the Santa Monica government and their immediate families are barred from any aircraft, anywhere, and for any purpose. Let ’em take the bus. No airmail, Fedex or UPS air services will be permitted to or from Santa Monica, no medevac services, the entire city is a no-fly zone forever. Be careful what you wish for, you’re about to get it. You guys hate aviation, aviation is returning the favor.

So their great compromise deal is ti immediately wack off 1500′ of usable runway? I can’t wait to see what use all that valuable land really gets put to. Maybe a park for a few years until they can show it is underutilized and unwanted then some developer makes a nice big payoff to get it.

They don’t need another park that won’t contribute to the economy at all! Unless this is contested it will turn into another Meigs. A park that contributes nothing.. Meanwhile others lose jobs and easy access to a valued airport. This has nothing to do with safety as the city council says they just don’t want an airport in their backyard. Until of course they realize they just lost the convenience of SMO and the lack of the airport just forced everyone to go to other saturated airports in the area.